The 3D Model of Role-Playing: An Overview

The "3D Model" is a model of role-playing styles, which maps out
role-playing styles on two axes. Thus, the name is something of
a misnomer, but arose out of the relation to the Threefold Model
and GNS Model. The original idea for it was suggested by Mike Holmes
in an August 2004 post to The Forge. (Holmes) However, there
were many contributors documented in three Forge threads, and
Vincent Baker suggested a similar model on his blog anyway. The
3D model was originally conceived of as adding a new dimension
to the GNS model for player control over the game. The name is
a misnomer since it only has two dimensions, but rather it
associates "threefold" and adding an extra dimention.

There are two qualities which are mapped out in this model.

Focus is that aspect of play which generally has the
most attention put to it. From experience with the Threefold
Model and GNS, the three suggested foci are: "Theme",
"Immersion", and "Challenge". So a focus on theme would mean
that the theme was the center of attention for the players.
Different players may focus on different aspects -- in which
case the game as a whole would be said to have focus based on
the average of all players, with an additional note on how
divergent the players were.

Centrality is a measure of how the events of play and
in particular the focus of play are constructed. i.e. How
does the group collaborate to decide on the events of play?
There are three levels of centrality: "Centralized", "Guided",
and "Decentralized". "Centralized" means that the focus
aspects are narrowly determined by a central authority or plan.
"Guided" means that the focus aspects are pointed but not
determined. "Decentralized" means that the focus aspects are
created spontaneously by multiple sources during play.

Focus is perhaps a vague variable, but it is visible by player
attention. i.e. What elements are players concentrating on and
paying attention to? What parts of the game do they talk about
afterwards? These two might not be the same, but we are conflating
them for purposes of this model. Centrality is trickier. Note
that centralized play isn't necessarily railroaded. It may be
collaborative by jointly creating the plan or cooperating under
direction. However, it does not involve spontaneous reactions
during active play. In other words, there is only one source
which can majorly change the course of play: this could be a
text source, the GM, or a vote of all the players.

Further details and examples:

Challenge, Centralized

The players are presented with a more-or-less linear sequence
of challenges. In a traditional fantasy game, this could be
a dungeon module where there is little if any branching, so
each room is in order. Many 2nd edition AD&D modules
and/or tournament AD&D modules were linear in this way.
This is a tactical rather than strategic game, where the focus
is on overcoming individual encounters rather than changing
the overall course.

Challenge, Guided

The players choose within a limited set of options. For
example, this could be a large, non-linear dungeon module.
The players could choose many different orders to take on
challenges, or might even choose to not take on certain
aspects of the dungeon. Many of the classic AD&D modules
had such choices. Any game with important strategic choices
is also included.

Challenge, Decentralized

An approach like like Great Ork Gods (Aidley) or
Donjon (Nixon) -- where challenges are spontaneously
generated with input from the players.

Theme, Centralized

This would be a game with a strong theme but with strong
central control of the progression. This is epitomized by
the approach of games like Deadlands or Torg
which present adventures as strict sequences of scenes.

Theme, Guided

This would include most games where the players have some
control over the expression of theme. Likely candidates
include Sorcerer.

Theme, Decentralized

This would include games with heavy directory stance
by the players, such as Primetime Adventures.

Immersion, Centralized

This would be study of centrally-created world and/or
characters -- which could include a style sometimes called
"Welcome to My World". This is where the game consists
primarily of the characters learning about the world, NPCs,
and/or mysterious situations. There may not be a
pre-determined plot, but in any case the plot is secondary
to the NPCs and background being explored.

Immersion, Guided

This would be a common case of detailed RPGs where the
GM creates an adventure outline. Good candidates might
be RuneQuest, Skyrealms of Jorune, and
HârnMaster.

Immersion, Decentralized

A good example of this is freeform LARPs (sometimes known
simply as "freeforms" particularly in Australia) -- i.e.
LARPs without controls to generate a central plot. The
plots are created by spontaneous player maneuvering and
interaction.

Other Foci

The list of Challenge, Theme, and Immersion
is not necessarily definitive. The category of Focus determines
what part of the imaginative process is being paid attention
to. There are a number of cases which are not completely clear,
such as focus on comedy or genre emulation. These could conceivably
be categorized in with either Theme or Immersion. For example,
would a player-directed comedy game fit more with Theme/Decentralized --
which puts it in the same bucket as Primetime Adventures?
However, perhaps since it is unclear, it would be better to define
a different focus for entertaining story emulation. This would be
focus on having a fun plot even if it doesn't have a consistent
moral theme.

Another suggested focus was "Internal Causality". I would tend
to say that internal causality is a technique, not a focus.
Attention to the imaginative elements themselves is Immersion,
but this may or may not use internal causality. Immersion is
the sense of conveying the feel of person, places, or things.
This can also be thought of as representation, or the vividness
of portrayal.

Relation to GNS

The 3D Model was originally proposed in The Forge forum on the
GNS Model, and the two models cover roughly the same ground.
The distinction is that the 3D Model separates out the centrality
of authorship. Within the 3D Model, Immersion/Centralized has
generally been considered GNS Simulationism. Theme/Centralized
has also been considered GNS Simulationism. Theme/Decentralized
has generally been labelled GNS Narrativism. Expanding Mike's
earlier diagram, this can be shown as:

Note that I marked Immersion/Decentralized and Challenge/Centralized
with question marks. I think that these regularly get classified
differently under GNS by different people, or more often simply
ignored as possibilities. The term "Open Sim" has been used on
the Forge to describe some decentralized immersive games, such as
my Water-Uphill World campaign. However, analysis of such
campaigns went back and forth regularly between GNS categories.

Moreover, I feel that the 3D Model more successfully addresses
the relationship between games. Though to some degree, this is
inevitable simply in that it has nine categories instead of three,
so it will show more. Notably, with the 3D Model, we can show a
relationship between a group which is playing for "Theme" as a
common feature -- but distinguishes between Theme/Centralized and
Theme/Decentralized. I believe these are quite distinct, but their
relation should be recognized.

Another relation of the GNS Model was proposed by Ralph Mazza
(aka Valamir). In
"
The Model as seen by Valamir," he suggested that the sort of
passive play, known as Illusionism or Participationism, is really a
separate category of Creative-Agenda-less play. (Mazza 2004)
In terms of the 3D Model, this would be a separate category.
His forumation would map to the 3D Model, then, as follows:

Conclusion

The 3D Model presents a related but distinct view of the
concepts expressed by the Threefold Model and the GNS Model.
It benefits from having more finely-grained categories --
nine instead of three. It also organizes them on two
clearly-defined axes. While it does not necessarily replace
the earlier models, it provides an alternative view.
In principle, the separated axes may make this easier to
apply to games in practice.

A potential difficulty for diagnosis is the idea that one's agenda
in the game might be unconscious. One controversial aspect of GNS
has been such unconcious distinctions -- i.e. for example, one
consciously identifies one's play as GNS Narrativist, when really
it is GNS Simulationist. This idea could apply as well to Focus
in the 3D Model. For example, a group of players might consciously
agree to focus on the Theme, but they end up each trying to outdo
the other and the result is ultimately a focus on Challenge.
However, it is generally more useful to trust players to make
their own diagnoses.